Virginia's newly inaugurated Republican Governor, Bob McDonnell, has promised to privatize that state's liquor stores.
Our Governor, on the other hand, has convinced herself that selling Blue Curacao is a core function of government.
Discuss.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 03, 2010 05:53 PM | Email ThisAll they have to do is supply basic services and balance the budget. I think it is about time to bring in the adults and put these folks on a budget and start thining things out in government.
Posted by: bill on February 3, 2010 07:45 PMWell, Mathew, it might astonish you, but you do realize this country was founded by people that consisted of heavy, yet highly intelligent, imbibers of "demon alcohol" and managed to contribute to a brilliant document that has sustained our country for more than 200 years until 'sober' politicians (and courts) of today have systematically dismantled it in the last 35 or so, right?
Privatize this industry. This is not a function of a nannystate/incompetent state government. It is simply a revenue generator for the pigs in the Olympia to feed at the trough of.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 3, 2010 09:41 PMBut, unlike Prozac, dose, result and side effects are far more controllable and predictable.
Washington State has the highest liquor taxes and maybe the highest tobacco taxes in the country.
Gasoline is now used mainly by sinners. I think the "sin tax" on gasoline in Washington is also the highest in the nation.
This is classism.
We could have an utter house cleaning on Washington State government if the pre-tax cost on liquor, cigarettes and gasoline where posted on the pump and shelf, and then the doubling and tripling of the final cost were delivered at the check out line.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on February 3, 2010 09:55 PMhttp://itsonlywords55.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/a-tale-of-two-governors/
Posted by: itsonlywords on February 3, 2010 10:17 PMHowever, we have a choice as a people.
(1) Ban alcohol altogether. This will drive the alcohol industry underground. However, it has the positive effect of eliminating it from the public, for the most part. It is true that alcohol consumption and public drunkenness decreased when the alcohol ban was in effect. However, it is also true that criminal organizations greatly profited from the tax-free alcohol industry.
(2) Tax it heavily, but not too heavily that it is driven underground. In this road, we tax it so we get less of it. Only those who are rich can really afford to get drunk. We make sure the taxes are as high as possible, but not so high that people are smuggling it into the state or that we develop a black market for alcohol. In other words, if imbibers had to choose between the black market or the high taxes, set the taxes so that they will choose the taxes over the black market.
(3) Don't tax it at all. In this approach, we let market forces determine the price. The true price of alcohol, however, is very cheap, probably cheaper than soda pop.
Socialization of industry is never an option in my book. Government should do as little as possible---only those things the people cannot do as efficiently as government. Distributing alcohol is something that the people can do far better than the state.
I don't believe in our political environment (1) is even possible, let alone desirable. I also don't think we should pass up the opportunity to at least derive some good from alcohol consumption by taxing it.
Therefore, I support liberalizing the market and taxing the heck out of alcohol. At least we can get some good from those who want to ruin their lives with alcohol.
Following this argument logically, we should do the same with every other type of drug that is not good for you.
On top of this, we should add laws against public drunkenness and such. If you're out in public in an inebriated or psychedelic state, you go straight to jail, and perhaps rehab. We'll send you a bill when you get out, or let you work it off in prison making license plates. If you can't destroy your body without hurting us, you don't deserve to be free.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on February 3, 2010 11:38 PMI don't like bean sprouts !
They are one of the leading sources of food borne illness.
I say tax the hell out of them !!!
Plus they never lead to first time sex like alcohol is famous for.
Hmmm.
Alcohol gets the "Gold Star" for the initiation of human intimacy. Do you want to tax the hell out of that ?
Are you still single?
Posted by: Bart Cannon on February 4, 2010 02:39 AMThe problem with this argument, Jonathan, is that you can point to almost anything and say people are "ruin[ing] their lives with [it]". I thought you were more of a libertarian in your views so it surprises me that you would single out this one legal action for excessive taxation. Meanwhile, we have an overweight population and an ever increasing problem of childhood obesity rates. Aren't they ruining their lives as well? If nothing else, they are putting their health at risk long term by sustaining an unhealthy lifestyle and adding costs to all of us by driving up the cost of healthcare insurance. Perhaps we should target fast food, soda pop, snack items and sugar along with the alcohol, or we could just use some good common sense and leave people the hell alone to do what they want within the legal limits.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 4, 2010 06:05 AMI bet Rossi would have done something sensible like this. Too bad the populace here likes statists so much.
Posted by: Palouse on February 4, 2010 08:10 AMDon't you think that a responsible government purveyor of spirits would provide information in their stores about how to kick alcohol addiction?
Instead, all you will see is a small flyer about how to kick gambling addiction.
Is this a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, or a case of the left hand knowing EXACTLY what the right hand is doing?
To their tiny credit liquour stores will provide you with an under the counter flyer on liquor taxation. Ask for, but be fore-warned that the numbers are not presented in their most telling way for the consumer.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on February 4, 2010 03:37 PM
If some guy wants to set up a daily number lottery, why should he be restricted by a government monopoly?
Posted by: Dufus McBroke on February 4, 2010 04:15 PM